Texters not Talkers: Phone Call Aversion among Mobile ...eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2076/1/RRettie2076.pdfE-mail: [email protected]. R. Rettie 34 their mobile phones, with text

PsychNology Journal, 2007Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 33 - 57

33

Texters not Talkers: Phone Call Aversion among Mobile Phone Users

Ruth Rettie

Business School,Kingston University, UK

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that there are two types of mobile phone user. The study focused on the interactional experience of mobile phone calls and text messages. The research involved 32 UK mobile phone users and included extended interviews, 24-hour communication diaries, mobile phone bills and an analysis of text messages. The sample was evenly divided between men and women, and between two age bands, 21 - 34 years and over 35 years. In line with earlier work by Reid and Reid (2005a), two different groups emerged from the research: Talkers, who prefer talking on the phone, but use text messages as a convenient complementary medium, and Texters, who are uncomfortable on the phone and prefer to send text messages. The paper explains the distinction between the two groups in terms of phone aversion, and relates this to difficulties in the presentation of self. For those who are phone averse, SMS is a ground-breaking technology, providing the remote social connection that they cannot enjoy in phone calls.

Keywords: mobile phone, cell phone, text messages, SMS, phone aversion.

Paper Received 28/10/2006; received in revised form 11/03/2007; accepted 20/04/2007.

1. Introduction

This paper examines and develops the distinction drawn by Reid and Reid (2005a)

between two types of mobile phone user: Talkers, who prefer to make calls, and

Texters, who prefer to send text messages. Reid and Reid found that a preference for

either calls or texts split their sample roughly in half. The research described here:

refines their distinction, distinguishing between preference based on intrinsic and

extrinsic factors; replicates their findings in small-scale qualitative research with UK

adult respondents; and explains this polarisation in terms of phone aversion and

problems with presentation of self. For Talkers, phone calls are the primary function of

Corresponding Author: Ruth RettieBusiness School, Kingston University, Kingston Hill, KT2 7LB, UK.Phone: +44(208)547-2000E-mail: [email protected]

R. Rettie

34

their mobile phones, with text messages as an important complementary affordance,

but for Texters, who actively dislike phone calls, text messages are the raison d'�tre of

their mobile phones. The research suggests that there are individual differences in the

phenomenological experience of phone calls, and that a specific group of mobile

phone users are unable to enjoy this form of social interaction. Whereas Talkers used

both mobile phone calls and SMS, Texters primarily used their phones for texting.

They found SMS particularly valuable, because it enabled the remote social contact

that they do not enjoy with land or mobile phone calls.

The first text message was sent in the UK in 1992, but the technology was originally

developed to enable operators to communicate with users, and was limited to intra-

network communication until 1999 (BBC, 2002). The rapid growth of SMS (Short

Message Service) was not anticipated by the industry, which in 1999 was predicting

convergence and the disappearance of the medium within three years. However, SMS

growth has continued, with an average annual growth rate of nearly 30% over the last

five years. In 2006, 42 billion text messages were sent in the UK; this is approximately

4 texts sent or received, per person, per day (Text.it, 2007). Although SMS usage in

the UK is skewed towards younger users, 70% of all mobile phone users text at least

once a week (Ofcom, 2006). The sustained growth of SMS reflects its interactional

advantages; this paper suggests that these are particularly important for those who

find phone calls difficult.

The paper is organised as follows. I briefly review previous relevant research on

mobile phone interaction before describing the research method. This is followed by

the research findings and a discussion of their implications.

2. Previous Research on Mobile Phone Interaction

Several authors suggest that mobile phone calls and text messages can nurture

social bonds (Ling & Yttri, 2002; Grinter & Eldridge, 2001; Pertierra, 2005). The

increased contact facilitated by mobile phone calls increases intimacy in relationships

(Fortunati, 2000), reinforcing social bonds between close friends (Geser, 2005). Mobile

phones are frequently used to make “phatic calls” (Haddon, 2000) or “social grooming

calls” (Ling & Haddon, 2001), where making the call is more important than what is

said (Licoppe & Smoreda, 2006). Previous research suggests that the key

characteristics of SMS are its asynchrony and lack of intrusiveness (Ling, 2004; Geser,


35

2005). Like mobile phone calls, text messages are used for maintaining contact and

intimacy (Thurlow, 2003; Rheingold, 2003; Pr�itz, 2005; Ling & Yttri, 2002). As Ito and

Okabe (2005c, p. 265) observe, text messages can be a “means of experiencing a

sense of private contact and co-presence with a loved one”. In close relationships, the

connectedness enabled by a combination of media, including text messages, email,

and mobile phone calls, can develop into a continuous or “connected presence”

(Licoppe, 2004). Several studies indicate that SMS is mainly used with close ties

(Matsuda, 2005; Harper, 2003; Smoreda & Thomas, 2001). Reid and Reid (2005b)

suggest that texting primarily occurs within small “text circles”. In their online survey

they found that, on average, their respondents had twelve contacts whom they texted

regularly.

Reid and Reid (2005a) introduce the terms “Texters” and “Talkers”, classifying their

respondents on the basis of their expressed preference for text messages or phone

calls. This measure split their (mainly student) sample roughly in half, and was

correlated with significant differences in usage, attitudes and personality. Texters

scored significantly higher on the Russell Loneliness (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona,

1980) and the Leary Interaction Anxiousness (1983) scales, and were significantly

more likely to think that SMS had improved their social relationships. These findings

are especially interesting given that earlier uses and gratifications research (Wei & Lo,

2006) found that those who were less socially connected on the Russell Loneliness

scale (1980), were significantly less likely to use mobile phone calls for affective

gratifications. This suggests that SMS may be particularly important for those who are

less socially connected, affording remote affective connection. The distinction between

Texters and Talkers is taken further and developed in this paper.

In mobile phone calls an individual is simultaneously involved in two interactions

(Licoppe & Heurtin, 2002; Puro, 2002); this can create role conflict (Geser, 2005) as

different roles become salient at the same time. Several authors suggest that

Goffman’s concept of presentation of self is useful for conceptualising role conflict in

mobile phone interaction. In “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” (1959),

Goffman introduced a dramaturgical metaphor: interaction is a performance in which

the self is presented to others. Individuals present different roles, adapting their

manner and appearance to differentiate their roles. Physical settings are relevant, with

different roles performed in the “front” and “back” regions of the “stage”. Ling follows

Meyrowitz (1985), and uses Goffman’s stage metaphor to explain the juggling of

concurrent interactions in mobile phone calls (Ling, 1997; 2005a). Fortunati (2005)

R. Rettie

36

reports research on the presentation of self in mobile communication, and claims that

mobile phone calls expose the different roles that people play. Whereas mobile phone

calls can complicate the presentation of self, Oksman and Turtainen (2006) claim that

SMS helps teenagers to control “face-work”, facilitating their presentation of self. I

develop this, arguing that problems with presentation of self in phone calls help to

explain why some people prefer to send text messages.

This study differs from much of the existing research on SMS in three ways. Firstly,

whereas many empirical studies have focused on teenagers (e.g. Selian & Srivastava,

2004; Ito & Okabe, 2005b; Oksman & Turtiainen, 2006), the respondents in this

research were adults. Secondly, research on mobile phones has tended to focus on

either mobile phone calls or text messages; in contrast, this research compared the

two media. Finally, empirical work on SMS has concentrated on text message

language (Kasesniemi & Rautianen, 2002; Thurlow, 2003; H�rd af Segerstad, 2005;

Ling, 2005b) and on SMS reciprocation norms (Kasesniemi & Rautianen, 2002; Ito &

Okabe, 2005a; Laursen, 2005; Licoppe & Smoreda, 2006). In contrast, this research

focused on the experience of SMS interaction, comparing it with the experience of

mobile phone call interaction. This changes the research focus from mobile phone

usage behaviour, and from the content and form of text messages, to user perceptions

of these two media as social activities in their own right, rather than merely as means

of communication.

3. Research Approach and Method

Mobile phones combine two different communication channels in one device and

therefore, theoretically, on any occasion users have a choice between the two media.

This should increase users’ awareness of the differences between the two forms of

interaction. Exploiting this heightened awareness, the research focused on users’

perceptions of the differences between the experience of mobile phone calls and SMS.

The research question was: “To what extent do people perceive differences in the

interactional characteristics of different channels of communication? Is this relevant to

choice and usage?” The original objective of the research was to compare perceptions

of mobile phone call and text message interaction, rather than to explore Reid and

Reid’s distinction between two types of mobile phone user. However, during the

research it became apparent that there were individual differences in the way that the


37

two mobile phone channels are perceived, and that Reid and Reid’s distinction was

pertinent.

Open-ended (Silverman, 1997) qualitative interviews were selected as the main

research method, because the research concerned respondents’ perceptions of

interaction and their rationalisation of choices. The research primarily consisted of 2 -

2� hour long interviews with 32 UK mobile phone users. The interviews were

supplemented by an analysis of 24-hour communication diaries completed by

respondents on the day before their interviews, 278 text messages1 collected from the

interviewees, and respondents’ mobile phone bills where available2. King, Keohane,

and Verba (1994) claim that random selection is not generally appropriate in small

sample research, and advocate purposeful selection to maximize variation in the range

of explanatory variables. To control the variance between respondents, the research

sample was based on a quota, which divided respondents by gender, and into two age

groups, 21 - 34 and over 35. It is advisable to choose a homogenous sample (Kuzel,

1999) to facilitate analysis and reduce extraneous variation in the data. To increase

homogeneity, all respondents were over 21 years, lived in the UK and spent at least

�15 per month on their mobile phones (industry sources at O2 and BT indicate that

about 75% of UK users spend �15 or more per month). The need for homogeneity has

to be balanced with the need to include a range of people with different demographics

and lifestyles, to increase the insights provided by the research (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

Consequently, the sample was deliberately selected to include a wide variation in

terms of class, income, education level and presence of children.

Most of the research interviews took place between April and September 2005.

Respondents were asked to complete diaries on the day before the interview,

recording all their non face-to-face communication. These were a useful resource, but

may have primed participants, encouraging them to reflect on, rationalize, and

construct their communication use. Interviewees were asked to save all the text

messages sent or received on the day before the interview. During the interviews the

researcher collected text messages that had been saved on respondents’ phones,

both from the previous day and from earlier exchanges. These were either transcribed

or forwarded to her mobile phone. Materials used during the interviews included

1 The number of text messages collected from respondents varied. Some had many messages saved on their phones, whereas others had phones that could store only a few messages. Consequently the sample is indicative rather than representative of respondents’ messages.2 The seven respondents who had “pay as you go” phones did not receive mobile phone bills. A further three respondents had bills paid directly by their employers and six were unable, or reluctant, to provide copies.

R. Rettie

38

communication media cards, based on repertory grid analysis (Kelly, 1955); social

circle drawings (Pahl & Spencer, 2004); and Blob Tree diagrams (Wilson, 1991). The

interview transcripts and the text messages were both coded using Atlas-ti. All names

have been anonymised.

4. Individual Differences: Texters versus Talkers

Although all respondents made mobile phone calls and sent text messages, there was

a considerable variation both between their relative usage of these channels, and in

their perceptions of the advantages of the two channels. Cognizant of Reid and Reid’s

(2005a) distinction between Talkers and Texters, the research compared respondents’

attitudes to texting and calling. However, whereas Reid and Reid used a question

about preference to define their two categories, this research distinguished between

preference based on the intrinsic interactional characteristics of the medium, and

preference based on extrinsic factors, such as price or contract allowances.

Respondents were also asked how comfortable they felt, relatively, face-to-face, on

the phone, or when texting. This was a relatively sensitive issue, because some

respondents were embarrassed about their inadequacy on the phone. On occasion, an

informant’s discomfort with calls only emerged towards the end of an interview, in

response to direct probing, contradicting his earlier comments. In addition to

respondents’ attitudes, the research probed relative usage of the two media (both

claimed and as evidenced by their communication diaries and mobile phone bills).

Respondents fell into two groups: the majority were most comfortable when

interacting face-to-face, then during calls and then when texting (two had no

preference). Five of those who were most comfortable with calls, nevertheless texted,

usually because of cost. However, a substantial minority of twelve were most

comfortable when texting, usually followed by face-to-face interaction, with phone calls

as the channel in which they were least comfortable. Note the asymmetry in that

Texters generally prefer texting even to face-to-face communication, whereas Talkers

are most comfortable communicating face-to-face; this pattern was also found by Reid

and Reid (2005a).

Mobile phone bills, where available, and diaries supported claimed relative usage,

although there was a degree of exaggeration. Mobile phone contracts in the UK are

generally designed for Talkers, with a basic allowance of calls. Texters who had


39

contracts were not using their call allocation each month, and some had accumulated

a large number of “free” minutes. In addition, whereas Talkers’ bills often showed long

calls, Texters’ calls were typically less than 30 seconds in duration. For example,

Kevin had an allowance of 500 minutes; in fact his bill showed that he had not used

any minutes in the previous month. In contrast Dee had used 497 minutes of her 500

minute allowance. The communication diaries confirmed these patterns of usage. For

instance, Dee’s diary showed that on the day before the interview she had made five

mobile phone calls, but had sent no text messages, although she had received two

text messages. In contrast, Kevin’s diary showed that he had had two extended text

message exchanges, and had sent two further text messages (one in reply to a mobile

phone call that he had missed), but he had not made any phone calls.

The term “Texter”, which was introduced by Reid and Reid (2005a), is somewhat

misleading because all respondents texted and nearly all were enthusiastic about text

messages. Text messages had many advantages: they were quick and easy to send

and did not disrupt the ongoing activities of the sender; they did not intrude on the

recipient or others in their vicinity; they were inexpensive; they were private; and they

afforded a slower, more open ended form of communication. However, Texters were

particularly enthusiastic about texting and frequently compared text message

interaction favourably with phone calls, whereas Talkers explained their use of text

messages mainly in terms of speed, lack of intrusion, cost and the specific

communication task. For instance, Ella, whom I categorised as a Texter, explained that

she found it “easier to get across” what she wanted to say with text messages,

because, “With text you don’t have any strained kind of silences, you can just be to the

point and don’t have to worry about anything else.” Quinton also preferred text

messages, and explained:

Quinton: There's that cloak of slight anonymity? I don't know if that's correct, but, but certainly, um. It's you send it, you get a response back, you send and response back. It's, it's much, you're in control more perhaps though.

(bold emphasis added)

Texters appeared to be uncomfortable when on the phone, whether mobile or

landline. The degree of discomfort varied, but three respondents were extremely

phone averse. Zoe greeted the researcher with the words “I’m a phone-o-phobic”.

Throughout the interview she explained her strategies for avoiding calls. She

unplugged the answer phone on her landline, to avoid having to call people back, and

R. Rettie

40

made excuses to get off the phone, even when talking to her mother or sister. Zoe had

a particular problem with strangers:

Zoe: Even if I want a Chinese, I have to either go and ask my next door neighbour “Can you ring this up for me?” Or if there’s someone inthe house they can do it. I can’t do it. I can not ring up and order food, over the phone.

Yves shared her attitude to phone calls. If the job agency rang him to arrange an

interview, he would not take the call, but would use the call as a cue to go there

physically, to avoid having to speak on the phone. The only local phone numbers on

his phone bill were a taxi company, a pizza delivery company, and his home number.

In addition he had made two 35 second calls to a relative in Blackpool, and had made

three foreign calls, because he was concerned that he wasn’t getting a reply to his text

messages. Although Yves said that he had no local friends, through a dating site on

the Internet he has built up a network of friends throughout the world, with whom he

exchanges text messages, emails, and MSN chat. Kevin also hated talking on the

phone. If his mother called he would visit her, rather than return her call. He met his

long term girlfriend in an Internet chat room. They meet rarely and do not speak on the

phone, despite using each other’s phone number to send several text messages every

day.

Kevin: The only time I’ve spoken to her on the phone was “I’m at the airport waiting for you. Where are you?”

Ruth: So, not at all as emotionally close, as you are with texts, on the phone?

Kevin: No.Ruth: But yet face-to-face?Kevin: Face-to-face emotionally close, text messages –Ruth: Why?Kevin: I don’t know. Neither of us has ever phoned each other.

Zoe, Kevin and Yves are at the extreme end of the Texters spectrum. Their attitudes

to phone calls are somewhat surprising, given that the research respondents all spent

over �15 per month on their mobile phones, and had volunteered as subjects for

research, which was clearly described as being about mobile phones. As Kevin said,

“The only thing that surprises me, about me, is why I even bothered getting a mobile

phone in the first place”. Others shared their attitudes, but were less extreme,

sometimes being relatively comfortable when talking to close contacts or strangers, but

not with those in between.


41

Although Texters disliked phone calls, they were enthusiastic about their mobile

phones and text messages clearly played a major role in their social lives. This is

supported by an analysis of the text messages collected. These were classified into

two groups, instrumental and phatic3, depending on their ostensible motive.

Instrumental text messages are sent to accomplish a specific objective outside the

communication, whereas in phatic communication the objective is the social interaction

of the communication itself (see Figure 1 for examples of text messages classified as

“phatic” and “instrumental”). Slightly over 70% of the text messages collected from

Texters appeared to be phatic, indicating that their text messages have a social

function. The percentage of phatic messages was slightly lower at 56% for Talkers,

presumably because they also make phatic phone calls.

Phatic

(sent to Lynn by her partner )

Instrumental

(sent by Patricia to her brother)

Figure 1. Phatic and Instrumental Text Messages

In contrast to the negative attitudes of Texters towards phone calls, Talkers positively

enjoyed being on the phone, and could spend 30 minutes or more on a call. Mobile

phone calls were generally shorter than landline calls, but this was price driven, where

they had mobile phone contracts that allowed free off peak usage, calls were much

longer. Talkers explicitly recognized a category of people whom they described as

being “not good on the phone” or “not a phone person”, and often avoided phoning

them, choosing to text instead. Some Talkers were less keen on SMS, because they

found the typing difficult or, in one case, because the respondent was dyslexic and

found it difficult to compose messages. However, most Talkers enjoyed both phone

calls and text messages. Whereas Texters avoided making phone calls, texting (or

emailing) unless this was impractical, Talkers explained how they sometimes selected

a particular channel for its specific interactional affordances. For instance, they made

phone calls when they needed to discuss something, because they found it easier to

3 The seven respondents who had “pay as you go” phones did not receive mobile phone bills. A further three respondents had bills paid directly by their employers and six were unable, or reluctant, to provide copies.

Buy paintYou moan and wrinkle upmy clothes….but i love

you!

R. Rettie

42

resolve issues in the inactive interaction of a phone call. They also said that they made

calls when they were lonely and in need of company, or when they had to deliver “bad

news”, because they wanted to be available to provide emotional support. Text

messages were often a quick way of letting the other person know they were thinking

of them without intruding, but were also used where they wished to avoid interactive

communication, for instance, when apologising.

The next three sections of the paper discuss Texters in more detail, relating their

phone aversion firstly, to call structure, and secondly, to presentation of self, before

elucidating their attitudes by focusing on the phenomenological experience of mobile

phone interaction.

4.1 Phone Aversion and Call Structure

Texters found call structure oppressive. There was a need for small talk, silences

were unacceptable and finishing a call could be difficult. Both Texters and Talkers

spoke about the need for small talk in phone calls: “you've got to get the whole chit-

chat in there” (Tanya). This was more onerous for Texters. Fred explained: “it's very

hard to make conversation … you know talking about inconsequential stuff or, you

know, insignificant kind of stuff”. Goffman (1981, p. 18) claims that in verbal

conversation the interactants need to have “safe supplies” that is “a stock of

inoffensive, ready-to-hand utterances which can be employed to fill gaps”; Texters

found this difficult. Moreover, they were concerned that if they used up these

comments, there would be nothing for them to talk about when they met face-to-face,

as Fred commented, “if I say it all on the phone when we see each other we won’t

have much to talk about”. The problem of small talk is compounded on the phone,

because silences are unacceptable. Whereas in face-to-face interaction Texters could

interact socially without having to make conversation, for example watching TV

together, on the phone silences were interpreted as meaningful.

Ruth: You said on the phone you can’t be silent? Why not?Ulysses: Or, if you are, it’s a very big statement. It’s a very, very big

statement, if you’re silent on the phone. You know, they’re just all the pressures are to make a noise.


Texters also found it difficult to end calls. As Kevin commented: “I’ve found myself

thinking on a call before, ‘OK we’ve got the information. Can we just finish the phone

call now, please?’” Although many respondents said that some people talked for too

long when on the phone, this was a particular complaint of Texters. Some Texters


43

seemed to be exceptionally aware of the structure of phone calls. Xavier described the

structure of phone conversation, recognizing the different stages that have been

identified using conversation analysis (e.g. Schegloff 1986; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973;

Arminen & Leinonen 2006).

Xavier: A phone call comes in stages, you know. … you have to obviously let them know who you are, um. Get that out the way then um you can either, uh, go along with small talk for a little bit, or you can go straight in with what you called to talk about, if it’s that sort of phone call. Um, once that’s out the way, bit more small talk and then tail it off, or you can say, “OK I’ll see you later”, if you want to make it a shorter phone call. But, um tailing tail- I don’t really like the tailing off part, because of, um, it’s pure jest who has to do it first and the way you do it and ahh who says goodbye first.

Xavier, much preferred texting, because he did not like small talk and he found it hard

to end phone calls. Xavier is aware of call structure, but takes it for granted. He does

not treat the norm for small talk as discretionary, although he has devised a strategy

for reducing it during the negotiation of access at the beginning of the call (Licoppe,

2004; Arminen, 2005; Schegloff, 1986):

Xavier: I think you have to voice it to say, “Oh I’m off yeah, my phone bill’s terrible this month” and uh just. I I sometimes say, “Just a quick one” right at the beginning of the conversation, “Just a quick one” and then I get on with the phone conversation and then I get on with it with the phone conversation, yeah. And I say, “Yeah quick yeah see you later”.

The need for small talk and the difficulty experienced when ending calls does not fully

explain Texters’ negative attitudes. Most Texters particularly disliked voicemail and

answer phones (although one preferred it to actually having to talk on the phone). In

the research there were nine respondents who never left voice messages, eight of

these were Texters. This suggests that Texters’ problem with audio communication is

not just small talk or getting off the phone, as none of these are relevant to voicemail.

Rather, they may be particularly concerned by the need for interaction ritual during

phone calls, because they find phone calls uncomfortable.

4.2 Presentation of Self in Mobile Phone Communication

Many respondents complained about the difficulty of interpreting cues in phone

conversation, because there were no visual cues. Texters seemed to be particularly

conscious of this. In phone calls the loss of visual cues, such as facial expressions,

R. Rettie

44

makes interpretation more difficult than in face-to-face interaction. In the next extract,

Lynn, a Texter, explains this in more detail:

Lynn: You can hear something in the tone, but you're not quite sure. You can't see the eyes, you can't see the body language. You're kind of, you're picking up on half signals and sometimes it can be misinterpreted and sometimes, um it can give a little bit too much away. So it's sort of, I'd rather do it face to face, I'd rather completely confront it, or kind of shy away from it than to do that middle ground if it was a difficult [situation].


Lynn suggests that it is not only the danger of misinterpretation that concerns her;

she is also worried about her lack of control over the expressions given off in her tone

of voice. The problem with phone call interaction is not simply that there are insufficient

cues, but the nature of those cues. Speakers give off many cues inadvertently in their

tone of voice, slight hesitations, and choice of words. As Lynn explains, a call “can give

a little bit too much away”. Lynn’s use of the term “half-signals” is interesting. Face-to-

face interaction includes audio cues, but these are supported by visual cues. A

speaker can support her verbal performance with appropriate visual cues so that, for

instance, intended humour is signalled not only by intonation, but also by a rye smile,

raised eyebrow or challenging glance. More importantly, in face-to-face interaction,

what is being understood is signalled visually as well as verbally. Respondents were

concerned that what was given off in phone calls might be misinterpreted; this is of

less concern in face-to-face communication, because there is a continuous back

channel of visual feedback on how one is coming across.

The attitudes of Texters to phone calls were summed up by Kevin:

Kevin: Maybe it’s hard work, maybe it’s harder work than a face-to-face conversation. Um, there is an expectation of, of fluffiness in the call, which is an awful lot easier for me in person to person. And written communication doesn’t have the same expectation of the sort of bonding bit that goes around the conversation, when you’re just having an idle chat with someone. Maybe I know I’m not great, or think I’m not great at it, and want the visual cues to back up the audio cues.


Kevin’s references to “fluffiness” and the “bonding bit” seem to refer to a problem with

presentation of self; he attributes this to his lack of competence and the need to rely on

audio cues. Texters seem to find presentation of self in phone calls particularly difficult.

This would explain why they feel uncomfortable on the phone, and why they dislike call

structure norms that prolong the experience.


45

Presentation of self in SMS is rather different. There are less expressions, both given

and given off, but these are more controllable than in phone calls. The interactants

have more time to think about their responses and this increases their control over

presentation of self (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2006). Text messages are written

independently; both Texters and Talkers emphasised this aspect of SMS. It gives

participants time to consider the impression they are trying to make, and is particularly

useful at the beginning of romantic relationships. Carol explained how she might write

a text very carefully: “you might read it about 10 times over, sort of thing, just to appear

like as if you’re really cool, you’re just sending a casual message to a friend” whereas

“the spoken word you could fumble and you could be under pressure and nervous and

the wrong message might be conveyed as well”.

The non-verbal cues in text messages are easier to control, but there is far less

scope for these than in phone calls. Very few respondents used emoticons (there were

just six text messages with emoticons in the text messages collected). The lack of

cues in text messages means that they are often ambiguous. Respondents spoke

about frequent misunderstandings, and about the problem of conveying sarcasm and

humour in text messages if one didn’t know the sender well. Interpretation is less

problematic with messages from close friends, because they infer tone from their prior

knowledge of the sender.

4.3 The Phenomenological Experience of Mobile Phone Interaction

Phenomenology “studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or

first person point of view” (Smith, 2003). The research adopted a phenomenological

approach in order to understand respondents’ experience of phone calls and text

messages.

Respondents frequently said that the experience of phone calls was very similar to

face-to-face interaction: “although you’re not actually looking at each other, I suppose

in a sense it still, it’s face-to-face, without the faces” (Jackie). Zoe, a Texter, made the

same point when explaining why she preferred text, “at least I don’t have to talk to

them. I know it’s not. It’s daft ‘cos it’s not face-to-face on the phone, but it is face-to-

face to me”. Several used the same metaphor, being on the phone was like being with

the other person, but with one’s eyes shut. They emphasised the synchrony and

shared focus of phone conversation:

Carol: Yes, I think the other person is there, then and there. And you’re both communicating at exactly the same time. And that person

R. Rettie

46

has stopped to speak to you and you’ve stopped to speak to that person and you’re both com[municating]. Like your thoughts are together at the same time.


Phone calls involved focused concurrent interaction: “you’ve very much more got

somebody’s undivided attention on the phone … than almost anything else” (Harry). In

phone calls the interactants were “there together”. When on the phone: “you forget

actually that you’re in a crowded place, you’re kind of in your own little world” (Anne).

Whereas this was perceived as a benefit by Talkers, for Texters the focused attention

and real time interactivity of phone calls can be stressful. Some felt that they could be

more easily manipulated in verbal conversation: “I hate being manipulated in

conversations, absolutely loathe it” (Kevin). Lynn explained this in more detail; I had

asked her about the differences between texting and calling.

Lynn: It’s harder to say what you’re, what you’re trying to say to somebody, because they can interrupt or they can change –they can say something well makes, which will make you change what you were going to say, whereas on a text message, because it’s only. It’s like writing a letter, you can, you can kind of break down exactly what you want to say and it doesn’t get manipulated [in] any way, and then you send it, and it’s gone.


Lynn prefers to send text messages rather make phone calls, because she feels less

vulnerable to manipulation. Not only does she have more time to think about what she

wants with SMS, but she can say it without interruptions that may change what she

says.

Respondents tended to talk about situations when discussing phone calls and face-

to-face interactions. In phone calls and face-to-face interaction they spoke about

“leaving the situation”; and complained about the difficulty of ending phone calls.

These comments indicate strong situational proprieties for both phone calls and face-

to-face interactions. In contrast text message conversations were not treated as

situations. They did not seem to impose situational obligations; one could just ignore or

delete a text message. This was a major advantage of text messages, not only for

Texters, but also for Talkers in awkward circumstances or when they were busy. For

instance, Patricia, a Talker, explained that rejection was less distressing in text

message conversation than phone or face-to-face conversation:


47

Patricia: [on the phone] you have to leave the situation and it's the awkwardness of, you know, having to deal with the situation. At the end of the day you can delete somebody’s number, turn the phone off.


In contrast to the copresence of phone calls, when discussing text message

interaction, respondents spoke of the other person as not being there, or of “distance”.

This can be an advantage: Olivia explained that it was easier to use endearments in

text messages, because if one was rejected “it wouldn’t matter ‘cos you’re not there”.

The feeling that the other person isn’t “there” in text messages is especially relevant in

embarrassing interactions and in new relationships. Several female respondents said

that men were more romantic in SMS than when face-to-face or on the phone. Irene

said that her boyfriend first told her he loved her by text: it was “much easier for him to

write it than say it, also much easier for me, because I didn’t have to sort of worry

about what my face was doing”.

For both Texters and Talkers, the arrival of a text message is usually experienced as

pleasurable. The analogy with gifts (Taylor & Harper, 2003) was not supported by this

research, but many interviewees described a momentary sense of elation when they

heard their text message sound alert: “a little joy” (Cecil). Although text messages do

not require an immediate response, most opened their messages immediately, with

positive expectations. This may be because many messages are phatic. Messages

from mobile phone service providers are regarded as irritating, and most had turned

delivery reports off because they found it disappointing when they received

confirmation of delivery rather than a reply.

The phenomenological experience of phoning and of texting was a difficult area to

research, because respondents took these experiences for granted and found them

hard to articulate. The interviews therefore included a projective exercise to elucidate

the character of these experiences. At the end of the interviews, a Blob Tree diagram

(Wilson, 1991) was introduced and respondents were asked to choose the figures that

best illustrated what they felt when making phone calls, texting, emailing etc. Figure 2

shows Yves’ Blob Tree diagram and the figures he selected for (tele)phone calls, text

messages, email and instant messenger. Yves is a Texter who feels closest to the

other participant when using instant messenger. He hates the phone; his feelings are

reflected in the figures he chose for each communication channel.

R. Rettie

48

Figure 2. Yves’ Blob Tree Diagram (Illustration from Wilson, 1991)

Respondents’ choices did not show a consistent pattern for each channel as

anticipated, although their choices were consistent with the views they expressed in

the interviews. Instead their responses fell into two groups, with Talkers and Texters

choosing different sorts of illustrations, see Figure 3. All except one of the Talkers

chose intimate figures to represent the experience of being on the phone; the picture

at the end of the first row was chosen most frequently. Texters, on the other hand,

typically chose pictures for phone calls showing more distant figures falling, waving, or

hanging, as shown in the second row, reserving the more intimate pictures for their

experience of SMS. Talkers talked about how they felt close to the other person during


49

a phone call, whereas Texters felt more detached and sometimes anxious; the pictures

they chose reflect their attitudes.

Figure 3. How Talkers and Texters Visualize Phone Calls (Illustration from Wilson, 1991)

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The research substantiates and explains the distinction between Texters and Talkers

that was identified by Reid and Reid (2005a). Talkers preferred talking on the phone,

but used text messages as a convenient complementary medium. Texters were much

less comfortable on the phone, and preferred to send text messages. Both groups

enjoyed sending and receiving text messages, but those classified as “Texters”

exhibited varying degrees of phone aversion. Phone aversion is an important, but

neglected, individual response to social interaction, which has been recognized for

R. Rettie

50

nearly 50 years (LaRose, 1999), but there is relatively little research on the condition.

Wurtzel and Turner (1977) suggest that 15% of the population are telephone averse;

this corresponds with the 10% of the sample in this research who were extremely

phone averse. Previous research on telephone aversion has focused on extreme

cases. This research suggests that in a milder form it is relatively common, and has

been over looked in mobile phone communication. This is surprising, given the

extensive volume of research on mobile phones in the last ten years. There is a need

for further research to quantify the significance and distribution of phone aversion

among mobile phone users. This research included only adult mobile phone users; it is

possible that phone aversion is more widespread among teenagers. In the research

several respondents commented that they had outgrown previous problems with

phone calls. Problems with phone calls may be something that some people grow out

of; this would explain the particular appeal of texting to younger people (Ling, 2004).

This is consistent with research conducted among teenagers (Oksman & Turtiainen,

2006, p. 326) that claims that text messaging helps young people to control

presentation of self, enabling presentation of their “more courageous selves”.

Phone calls were perceived as ongoing social situations, which demanded a

prolonged, continuous performance. This makes presentation of self more challenging,

because the participants feel as if they are together, interacting in real-time. Silences

and hesitations are interpreted as meaningful, so that there is little time for the

interactants to deliberate. In addition, in phone calls - as in ordinary conversation -

there is opportunity for interruption and interjection within each conversational turn; this

enables one participant to manipulate the conversation. In verbal conversation what is

understood is a result of interactive co-operation between the participants (Garfinkel,

1967); one participant can coercively interpret the other, understanding what is said so

as to favour a preferred interpretation, or interrupt to forestall a particular interpretation

(Silverman & Torode, 1980). In contrast, the asynchrony of SMS increases individual

control and reduces scope for loss of face and embarrassment. The interactants are

not interacting in a shared time. Consequently, as with traditional letters, participants

can think about the messages they send, choosing their words carefully and not

exposing themselves to embarrassment and loss of face. However, unlike traditional

written media, SMS is quasi-synchronous, so interactive conversation is possible.

The experience of phone calls appears to be different for the two groups identified as

Talkers and Texters. Talkers enjoy phone calls and, as indicated by the Blob Tree

exercise, feel a sense of connectedness with the other interactant when on the phone.


51

Texters, however, did not feel close to the other person when on the phone, but felt

disconnected and uncomfortable. This is exacerbated by social expectations that

prolong phone calls. The research suggests that Texters find presentation of self in

phone calls more difficult; this makes them anxious and changes the

phenomenological experience of the call.

Phone calls present a particular challenge for the presentation of self, because

silence is unacceptable, and visual cues are excluded. Presentation of self (Goffman,

1959) involves projection of the self, interpretation of the self projected by the other

interactant, and also a recursive mutual monitoring in which each interactant checks

on the impression he is making. Each of these aspects may be implicated in the

discomfort experienced by Texters in phone calls. Texters may be less able to control

the audio cues they give off. This is a supposition that goes beyond the research

evidence, but it is consistent with Texters’ dislike voicemail, which would expose this

ineptitude. Similarly, one can surmise that Texters may be less competent in the

interpretation of the audio cues they receive from the other interactant. These have

two functions; they help to convey what the other person is saying and they show an

interactant how his performance is being received. In face-to-face interaction subtle

facial expressions and eye contact provide continuous concurrent feedback, but in

phone calls feedback is limited to intermittent verbal and paraverbal cues. Presentation

of self on the phone is also complicated because there may be a concurrent face-to-

face interaction and consequent role conflict (Geser, 2005). Texters find it particularly

embarrassing to conduct phone calls in front of copresent others and consequently

switch their phones off when in public places. Finally, it may be that Texters feel less

socially adequate and therefore more aware of these challenges. A combination of

these factors may be relevant, and the relevant factors may vary between different

individuals. Presentation of self is a skill, as Goffman (1959) points out. The relative

incompetence of Texters and/or their lack of confidence makes them vulnerable to

manipulation in the ongoing interactivity of phone conversation. Presentation of self is

less demanding in SMS, because it is asynchronous. This gives the interactants time

to deliberate on their performance, without concurrent influence from the other

interactant. For Texters, who find phone conversation awkward, SMS affords remote,

safe social interaction.

There is some indication in this research that phone aversion is a symptom of a more

general problem with social interaction. Texters usually preferred SMS and other

written communication to face-to-face interaction, suggesting a degree of social

R. Rettie

52

ineptitude. This is consistent with Reid and Reid’s (2005b) findings that Texters scored

significantly higher in terms of “loneliness” (Russell et al., 1980) and “interaction

anxiousness” (Leary, 1983). However, the evidence for this may have been

constrained by the research design, because all respondents had voluntarily chosen

the social interaction of the interviews, indicating a degree of social confidence.

It is interesting to note that the characteristics of phone calls that seem to create

phone aversion are socially rather than technologically shaped. The extended real-

time continuity of phone calls, the need for small talk, and the ritualised closing, are not

technical features of phone technology. There is no technical reason why phone calls

could not be used for minimal messages such as “Goodnight”, but all respondents took

it for granted that this was not acceptable. The constraint of normative practice in this

area is so strong that Texters would rather forgo phone calls, than infringe call

structure norms. This normative practice seems to have transferred from telephone to

mobile calls, although the increased cost of mobile phone calls provides an excuse for

shorter calls. In contrast, the normative practices associated with letters have not been

extended to text messages. This may have been technically shaped by the small

screens and character limit of early phones, which made such etiquette impractical.

However, although phone screens have got larger, and multi-page text messages are

possible, text messages have retained their lax norms, again reflecting the role of

social shaping in communication practice. While respondents took phone structure for

granted, they spoke positively about the lack of normative constraint in text messages;

this creates flexibility and allows users to personalise their messages.

Recognition of the distinction between Texters and Talkers is socially important,

because Texters are at a substantial disadvantage in phone communication. Text

messages have many advantages for all users, but for those who are phone averse,

SMS is a ground-breaking technology, affording the remote social conversation that

they cannot enjoy in phone calls. The recent proliferation of near-synchronous written

media may facilitate the social connectedness of this section of the community.

6. References

Arminen, I. (2005). Social functions of location in mobile telephony. Personal and

Ubiquitous Computing, 10 (5), 319-323.


53

Arminen, I., & Leinonen, M. (2006). Mobile phone call openings – tailoring answers to

personalized summons. Discourse Studies, 8(3), 339-368.

BBC (2002). Hppy bthdy txt!. BBC News. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2538083.stm.

Fortunati, L. (2000). The mobile phone: new social categories and relations. Sosiale

Konsekvenser av Mobiltelefoni, Oslo: Telenor.

Fortunati, L. (2005). Mobile telephone and the presentation of self. In R. Ling & P. E.

Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp.

203-218). London: Springer-Verlag.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Geser, H. (2005). Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone. In A. Zerdick, A.

Picot, K. Scrape, J.-C. Bugleman, R. Silverstone, V. Feldman, C. Wernick & C.

Wolff (Eds.), E-Merging Media: Communication and the Media Economy of the

Future (pp. 235-260). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. (2nd ed.).

Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Grinter, R. E., & Eldridge, M. (2001). y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg? Proceedings of Seventh

European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW '01,

219-238, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Haddon, L. (2000). The social consequences of mobile telephony: framing questions,

Sosiale Konsekvenser av Mobiltelefoni. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from

http://www.mot.chalmers.se/dept/tso/haddon/Framing.pdf.

H�rd af Segerstad, Y. (2005). Language use in Swedish mobile text messaging. In R.

Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the Social

Sphere (pp. 313-333). London: Springer-Verlag.

Harper, R. (2003). Are mobiles good or bad for society? In K. Ny�ri (Ed.), Mobile

Democracy: Essays on Society, Self and Politics, (pp. 185-214). Vienna: Passagen

Verlag.

Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005a). Intimate connections: contextualising Japanese youth

and mobile messaging. In R. Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor (Eds.), The Inside Text:

Social, Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS (pp. 127-145). Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer.

R. Rettie

54

Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005b). Mobile phones, Japanese youth, and the re-placement of

social contact. In R. Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-

negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp. 131-148). London: Springer Verlag.

Ito, M. & Okabe, D. (2005c). Technosocial situations: Emergent structuring of mobile e-

mail use. In M. Ito, M. Matsuda, & D. Okabe (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian:

Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (pp. 257-273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kasesniemi, E. L., & Rautianen, P. (2002). Mobile culture of children and teenagers in

Finland. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact (pp. 170-192).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York.

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Kuzel, A. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.),

Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. (pp. 33-45). London: Sage.

LaRose, R. (1999). Understanding personal telephone behavior. In H. Sawhney & G.

Barnett (Eds.), Progress in Communication Science Volume XV: Advances in

Telecommunication Theory and Research, (pp. 1-28). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Laursen, D. (2005). Please reply! The replying norm in adolescent SMS

communication. In R. Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor (Eds.), The Inside Text: Social,

Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS (pp. 53-73). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Springer.

Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: the construct and its measurement. Journal

of Personal Assessment, 47, 66-75.

Licoppe, C. (2004). 'Connected' presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for

managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 135-156.

Licoppe, C., & Heurtin, J. P. (2002). France: preserving the image. In J. E. Katz & M.

Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact (pp. 94-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Licoppe, C., & Smoreda, Z. (2006). Rhythms and ties: towards a pragmatics of

technologically-mediated sociability. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.),

Computers, Phones and the Internet: The Social Impact of Information Technology.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


55

Ling, R. (1997). One can talk about common manners. In L. Haddon (Ed.), Themes in

mobile telephony: Final Report of the COST 248 Home and Work group, (pp.73-96).

Telia: Farsta.

Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection: the Cell Phone's Impact on Society. San

Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Ling, R. (2005a). Mobile telephones and the disturbance of the public sphere published

in German as Das mobiltelefon und die st�rung des �fflentlichen raums. In J. R.

H�flich & J. Gebhardt (Eds.), Mobil Kommunikation: Perspektiven und

Forschungsfelder (pp. 115-134). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Ling, R. (2005b). The socio-linguistics of SMS: An analysis of SMS use by a random

sample of Norwegians. In R. Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile communications:

Renegotiation of the social sphere (pp. 335-349). London: Springer Verlag.

Ling, R., & Haddon, L. (2001). Mobile telephony, mobility and the coordination of

everyday life. Paper presented at The Machines That Become Us, April 18-19,

Rutgers University.

Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobiles phones in Norway. In J. E.

Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact (pp. 139-169). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden

& I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 146-152). London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Matsuda, M. (2005). Mobile communications and selective sociality. In M. Ito, M.

Matsuda & D. Okabe (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in

Japanese Life (pp. 123-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No Sense of Place: the Impact of Electronic Media in Social

Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ofcom (2006). The communications market - interim report, Ofcom. Retrieved March

18, 2006, from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/feb06_report/.

Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J. (2006). Mobile communication as a social stage:

Meanings of mobile communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland.

New Media & Society, 6 (3), 319-369.

Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: not simply families of 'fate' or

'choice'. Current Sociology, 52 (2), 199-221.

Pertierra, R. (2005). Mobile phones, identity and discursive intimacy. Human

Technology, 1 (1), 23-44.

R. Rettie

56

Pr�itz, L. (2005). Intimacy fiction: Intimate discourses in mobile telephone

communication amongst Norwegian youth. In K. Ny�ri (Ed.), A Sense of Place: The

Global and the Local in Mobile Communication (pp. 191-200). Vienna: Passagen

Verlag.

Puro, J. P. (2002). Finland: a mobile culture. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.),

Perpetual Contact (pp. 19-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reid, D., & Reid, F. J. M. (2005a). The social and psychological effects of text

messaging. Journal of the British Computer Society, January.

Reid, F. J. M., & Reid, D. (2005b). Textmates and text circles: Insights into the social

ecology of SMS text messaging. In L. Hamill & A. Lasen (Eds.), Mobile World: Past,

Present and Future. London: Springer-Verlag.

Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Perseus

Books.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviews: The Art of Hearing Data.

Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness

Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39 (3), 472-480.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.

Selian, A. N., & Srivastava, L. (2004). Mobile phones and youth: A look at the US

student market. ITU/MIC Workshop: Shaping the Future Mobile Information Society,

March 4-5, Seoul.

Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London:

Sage.

Silverman, D. & Torode, B. (1980). The Material World: Some Theories of Language

and Its Limits. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

Smith, D. W. (2003). Phenomenology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology.

Smoreda, Z., & Thomas, F. (2001). Social networks and residential ICT adoption and

use. EURESCOM P903. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from

http://www.eurescom.de/~ftproot/web-deliverables/public/P900-

series/P903/ICT_use_Smoreda.pdf.


57

Taylor, A. S., & Harper, R. (2003). The gift of the gab: a design oriented sociology of

young people's use of mobiles. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW), 12 (3), 267-296.

Text.it (2007). 41.8 billion text message for 2006. Mobile Data Association. Retrieved

January 24, 2007, from

http://www.text.it/mediacentre/press_release_list.cfm?thePublicationID=351A37F2-

C5A0-881E-03C5B18AAC2AE745.

Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-

messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from

http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-01.html.

Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and

social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53-72.

Wilson, P. (1991). The Spectacular Stinking Rolling Magazine Book. London: Marshall

Pickering.

Wurtzel, A. H. & Turner, C. (1977). Latent functions of the telephone: What missing

extension means. In I. de Sola Pool (Ed.), The Social Impact of the Telephone, (pp.

246-261). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Documents

Texters not Talkers: Phone Call Aversion among Mobile ...eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2076/1/RRettie2076.pdfE-mail: [email protected]. R. Rettie 34 their mobile phones, with text